SOME CONSEQUENCES CONCERNING LAW WITH REFERENCE TO KANT’S ARTICLE ENTITLED “AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ‘WHAT IS ENLIGHTENMENT?’” Ogün ÜREK ABSTRACT When Kant’s article entitled “An Answer to the Question ‘What is Enlightenment?’” is considered, it can be said that the article incorporates some thoughts as a clue for some solution offers to the question what are the conditions that a law system may not exist without. I believe that what can be concluded from this may be addressed in three headings: Firstly, what should the basic rule in law be? Kant considered free use of reason in public, when expressed in today’s language freedom of expression, as the most fundamental condition required for enlightenment. When considered from this point of view, it can be alleged that this standard of Kant should establish the content of the basic norm which all law systems should be based on. Secondly, how can we change laws? Changing of the norm by the norm maker and where to focus upon for in which direction this change should be done becomes clarified in Kant’s article. This is nothing more than the thoughts of a person who adopted it a life style to obey these norms, revealed within the frame of freedom of expression. Finally, from Kant’s article we can learn that law should be deterrence. Keywords: Law, Enlightenment, Obedience, Rule, Freedom, Deterrence (Kant’ın ‘Aydınlanma Nedir? Sorununa Yanıt’ Başlıklı Makalesinden Hareketle Hukuka İlişkin Birkaç Sonuç) ÖZET Kant’ın ‘Aydınlanma Nedir? Sorununa Yanıt” başlıklı makalesine bakıldığında, makalenin bir hukuk sisteminin varlığı için onsuz olamayacağı koşullar neler olmalıdır sorusuna verilecek kimi çözüm önerileri için ipuçu niteliğinde düşünceler barındırdığı söylenebilir. Buradan çıkarılacak sonuçlar kanımca üç başlık altında ele alınabilir: ilk olarak, hukukun temelini oluşturan temel yasa ne olmalıdır? Kant aklın özgür bir şekilde kamuda kullanılmasını, bugünkü dile getirilişiyle ifade özgürlüğünü, aydınlanmanın en temeldeki koşulu olarak düşünür. Bu bakış açısından bakıldığında, Kant’ın bu ölçüsünün bütün hukuk sistemlerinin dayanması gereken temel normun içeriğini oluşturması gerektiği ileri sürülebilir. Ikinci olarak, hukuk yasalarını nasıl değiştirebiliriz? Işte tam bu noktada, Kant’ın makalesinde norm koyucunun normu değiştirmesi ve bu değişikliğin ne yönde yapılması gerektiği konusunda nereye bakılacağı açıklığa kavuşmuş oluyor. Bu da, normlara itaati bir yaşam tarzı haline getirmiş kişinin ifade özgürlüğü çerçevesinde ortaya koyduğu düşüncelerinden başka bir şey değildir. Son olarak, Kant’ın makalesi aracılığıyla hukuka itaat etmenin gerekliliğini de öğreniyoruz. Anahtar Kelimeler: Hukuk, Aydınlanma, İtaat, Yasa, Özgürlük, Caydırıcılık Uludağ Üniversitesi Felsefe Bölümü öğretim üyesi FLSF (Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi), 2015 Bahar, sayı: 19, s. 249-258 ISSN 1306-9535, www.flsfdergisi.com Some Consequences Concerning Law with Reference to Kant’s Article Entitled “An Answer to the Question ‘What is Enlightenment?’” I. Introduction Very few articles was so influential in the history of thought as the article titled An Answer to the Question ‘What is Enlightenment’ written by Kant in 1784. As in the past, also today this article of Kant becomes the subject of many positive or negative critics in many aspects and it seems that it will continue to be so in the future. I guess it should not be so difficult to estimate that the interest in this article began particularly after the French Revolution that took place in 1789. Since in this article, Kant, makes a remarkable and a significant determination between social enlightenment and revolutions at the point where he mentioned the prerequisites for a social enlightenment. According to his determination; A public can achieve enlightenment only slowly. A revolution may well bring about a failing off of personal despotism and of avaricious or tyrannical oppression, but never a true reform in one’s way of thinking; instead new prejudices will serve just as well as old ones to harness the great unthinking masses1. When considered from this point of view, it can be supposed that there is an interest for what the idea of Kant, a respectable philosopher of that era, is related with the revolutions in order to presume the impacts of the revolution, just after the French Revolution, may be on the future of mankind. In particular, considering that this thought was depicted before 250 the French Revolution yet took place, a remark can be made that this stimulated the interest on the article more. On the other hand, today the critics on the article appear on a more unfavourable way. It is seen that some philosophers of today especially the ones designating themselves as postmodern reduce the modernity to some certain sense of reason and this sense of reason to the reason which is one of the main concepts in this article of Kant and which they characterize as conception of enlightened reason and criticize during their efforts to distinguish between postmodern and modern while trying to define the concept “postmodern”2. Most strident critics among those raised today on this article are for the concept of “obedience” which Kant in his article considers as a condition which an enlightened society cannot be without. According to some philosophers, such an understanding of obedience leaded many unfavourable events in particular those events that resulted in concentration camps and death of millions of humans during the World War II3. 1 Immanuel Kant, Immanuel Kant. Practical Philosophy, Translated and edited by Mary J. Gregor (Cambridge University Press, 1996) pp 12. 2 In my opinion the first name that comes to one’s mind as an example would be Zygmunt Bauman. 3 At this point the philosophers at issue are Adorno and Horkheimer, philosophers of Frankfurt School. Especially the ideas of the school based on The Dialectics of Enlightenment form the foundations of the fact at hand. Ogün ÜREK At this point, I will try to demonstrate with this presentation, that these critics against the concept of obedience are highly unjust critics and let alone creating such kind of unfavourable circumstances, this obedience mentioned of by Kant is the basis of law, the only instrument readily available to us to convert this world into a more liveable place. Moreover, I will put forth that Kant gives many clues on this issue by some of his other thoughts in this article other than his approach towards the concept of obedience to determine the conditions those cannot be done without for a law which should exist. Now, I wish to summarize some thoughts of Kant in this article which I believe you very well know. II. What is Enlightenment in Kant? The article with title “An Answer to the Question ‘What is Enlightenment’ ” by Kant is his answer to the question “do you also think, as many others express, the age we live in is an Age of Enlightenment?” raised in a monthly magazine published during that time in Berlin to be answered by many thinkers including Kant. Kant, with an aim to give a reply to that question, defines enlightenment at the very beginning of his article as: Enlightenment is the human being’s emergence from his self- incurred minority. Minority is inability to make use of one’s own understanding without direction from another. This minority is self-incurred when its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from 251 another. Sapere aude! [dare to be wise] Have courage to make use of your own understanding! is thus the motto of enlightenment4. According to Kant who defines enlightenment this way “for this enlightenment, however, nothing is required but freedom, and indeed the least harmful of anything that could even be called freedom: namely, freedom to make public use of one’s reason in all matters”5. Based on those expressions it could be said that what Kant makes of enlightenment is the process of liberation of reason in its most basic meaning. Secondly, Kant tries to depict that the reason has a structure tending towards freedom by its nature. Since, as Kant states, at the beginning of this article, it is not the fault of reason that a person is in minority. This is another way of telling that the reason has a structure that produces freedom inherently. The result revealed here is parallel to the general philosophy of Kant. According to this philosophy, reason, as a pure structure, is a structure producing ideas. The idea of freedom is one of those ideas6. Therefore, it should be taken into account that the freedom mentioned here by Kant corresponds to the understanding of freedom as an idea in his philosophy. 4 Kant, Immanuel Kant. Practical Philosophy, p 11. 5 Ibid, p 13. 6 Immanuel Kant, Kant’s Critique of practical reason and other works on the theory of ethics, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, (Longmans, Green, and Co, London, New York and Bombay1898) pp 88. Some Consequences Concerning Law with Reference to Kant’s Article Entitled “An Answer to the Question ‘What is Enlightenment?’” Kant afterwards continues to his article: “But I hear from all sides the cry: Do not argue! The officer says: Do not argue but drill! The tax official: Do not argue but pay! The clergyman: Do not argue but believe! Everywhere there are restrictions on freedom”7. Against this contrariety, Kant feels that it is necessary to ask this question: “But what sort of restriction hinders enlightenment and what sort does not hinder but instead promotes it?8 Then he gives the following answer: The public use of one’s reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among human beings; the private use of one’s reason may, however, often be very narrowly restricted without this particularly hindering the progress of enlightenment9.